HC Deb 07 November 1989 vol 159 cc862-4

5.3 pm

Mr. Eric Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now one and a half hours since the Prime Minister left the Chamber. I wanted to raise a point of order about something that the Prime Minister said at Question Time, but I could not do so because of a ruling that you made. The Prime Minister is probably on her way to America or Russia by now. It is absurd that I can raise my point of order only now, one and a half hours after the issue should have been raised.

I ask you to reconsider carefully your ruling. You accepted a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I do not disagree with that, because it was on a vital matter. My point of order is that the Prime Minister equated people in CND with Pol Pot. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) may laugh, but it is not funny to suggest that hon. Members who believe in CND are murderers or to compare them with Pol Pot and his despicable gang. The matter should have been dealt with there and then but, because of your ruling, only now, one and a half hours later, do I have an opportunity to raise it.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman should reflect carefully on what he has just said. At the beginning, he stated that he would have liked to raise a matter with the Prime Minister or about her comments at Question Time.

Mr.Heffer

That is not what I said in my point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I ask the hon. Member to look in Hansardtomorrow at what he said. A point of order must relate to order in the Chamber. I cannot be held responsible for what the Prime Minister says, provided that she is in order. What she says is her own responsibility. As the House knows, points of order are matters on which the Speaker can adjudicate and I cannot adjudicate on whether the Prime Minister's comments are right or wrong. If I allowed what the hon. Member suggests, we should have a whole rash of points of order arising out of Question Time, which would disfigure the proceedings and delay subsequent business. The matter that the hon. Member raises is not a point of order for me.

Several Hon. Members

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I shall hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), because it is important to clear up the matter.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you now ruling that hon. Members on either side can say just about anything about citizens for whom you are responsible? We are all responsible to the people who elect us to the House. Are you now saying that it does not matter what the Prime Minister or any other individual says in the House about people, even if it is a downright lie, and that we cannot stand up to defend our people?

Mr. Speaker

I am saying to the hon. Member and to the House that in this place we have total freedom of speech, unless it reflects upon another hon. Member.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week you said: It is not in order to use House of Commons stationery for party-political purposes."—[Official Report, 1 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 321.] I have to hand a House of Commons franked envelope. There is nothing remarkable about that. We use them every day to write to our constituents about matters which concern them. Unfortunately, this envelope, franked and paid for by the taxpayers, was used to send out minutes to members of Redcar constituency Labour party. Will you consider sending a bill to Redcar Labour club, as, among others, it is—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can give the hon. Member guidance. This matter was raised last week about other similar episodes. Will he kindly send the envelope to the Services Select Committee, which is already dealing with two other cases and which, I am sure, will wish to deal with that matter too?

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you were responsible for the order of the House. This afternoon, a statement was made which related to the London area, for which you allowed one hour. You called mainly London Members. The statement was not issued until the moment when the Secretary of State rose to speak, so no one could read it in depth beforehand or ask sensible questions on it. The whole procedure was a farce. You allowed only half an hour on the ambulance dispute, which relates to the whole country, and you stopped only seven Members who were seeking to catch your eye—of whom I was one—from asking a question. Hon. Members from the north of England in particular were not called to speak about the ambulance dispute. One would have thought that it was a private dispute occurring only in London. Will you consider the way in which you allocate time to ensure that hon. Members from constituencies outside London catch your eye?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time that I have agreed with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I have spent most of my time shouting and bawling from one side to the other—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not relish it.

Mr. Skinner

The hon. Member for Langbaurgh is right. I am not against spending an hour on the train inquiry statement, and nor am I against spending an hour on the ambulance dispute statement. However, Mr. Speaker, you called hon. Members who had been called previously. There have been several statements on the ambulance dispute and some hon. Members have never been called—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not yet Mr. Speaker. I know that he was an experienced chairman and I often accept—

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

My hon. Friend was very good.

Mr. Speaker

Yes, indeed the hon. Gentleman was a very good chairman. I was often grateful for his advice.

I must say to both the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Bolsover that I have to make a balanced judgment—

Mr. Skinner

You have not been very good at it lately.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman had better calculate what he is saying.

Mr. Skinner

I have done.

Mr. Speaker

I must tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, who raised the point, that I allowed the first statement to continue because I was anxious to ensure that those hon. Members whose constituents had suffered as a result of that sad train accident were called to say something about the report. I hope that the House will not consider that to be wrong.

There was a private notice question yesterday about the ambulance dispute. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully today, he would have heard the Secretary of State say that the troops are on alert in London, not elsewhere in the country. Perhaps there will be other occasions when this matter is before us—I hope not—but then I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.